From: Tat Tang <tat_tang_at_yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2003 05:39:35 -0800 (PST)

> So I propose that there be two font formats -
> the existing one (possibly with a slight rev to
> version
> number for a few extra bits, see below), and your
> new "disk-based" format, used only for fonts that
> are deemed to large for in-core use. In this way
> we won't require smaller fonts to always require
> more
> memory space.

I agree, there should be two formats. Though by
tweaking the cache index we could easily introduce the
ability to load multiple fonts.


> It's probably best that we try to stay somewhat
> close to the existing format, since then we can
> easily extend the existing tools to write both
> font formats. Non-bdf sourced fonts would get
> converted to the .fnt (style 1 or 2) format.

Agree, no sense in re-inventing the wheel!


> ULONG charset // add quick-access flag bits
> for charset

Think we should include revisions, e.g. GB2312-80, in
case we have some auto-recognition code.

> Do you think we need to worry about whether the
> imagebits
> words need to be byte-swapped or not?
>

It's probably useful to include it as a flag. The
implementation can decide what to do if the bytes are
appropriate for the platform.

Regards, Tat.

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com
Received on 2003-04-05